Clinician perceptions of passport for care for survivorship care plan delivery.
Authors: Maria Monica Gramatges, Jason E King, Ellen Shohet, Susan M Krause, Kevin E Musgrave, Michael C O'Connor, Michael E. Scheurer, Marc E Horowitz, C Michael Fordis, David G. Poplack
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2022)

e24058 Background: Survivors of childhood cancer are at lifelong risk for late effects. The Children’s Oncology Group evidence-based guidelines provide exposure-based risks and recommendations for late effects screening. The Passport for Care (PFC) was developed in 2007 as a web-based clinical decision support tool that uses advanced algorithms to generate a personalized survivorship care plan (SCP), derived from the guidelines and user-entered exposures. Over 150 Long-Term Survivor (LTS) clinics utilize PFC, generating over 47,000 SCPs to date. Our objective was to assess PFC user practices and perceptions of PFC’s impact on clinic workflow, guideline application, and survivor shared decision-making. Methods: We designed a 35-item survey based on a 2012 PFC survey and expanded to include items related to interval website improvements. In June 2021, a REDCap™ survey was sent via email to 935 PFC users in 145 clinics: 107 active PFC clinics and 38 inactive (no data entry in the preceding 6 months). Responses were anonymous, but those who provided an email address were given a $5 gift card. Survey results were reviewed, summarized, and compared with data from 2012 using a Chi square test, when applicable. Results: There were 148 respondents of whom 104 declined anonymity, representing 64 clinics (44%): 58 of the active (54%) and 6 of the inactive clinics (16%). Respondents were largely physicians (n = 46), advanced practice providers (APPs, n = 42), and nurses (n = 49). Of the 148 respondents, 142 provided valid data for the remaining items. PFC was most often used to generate a personalized SCP (n = 131, 93%), compared with 63% in 2012. Other common uses were as a clinical database (59%) and to document late effects (51%). Seventy-one respondents (50%) used PFC to generate an SCP at entry to LTS, and 54 (38%) used PFC at every survivor visit. Most used PFC for &gt; 75% of survivors (n = 103, 73%). Nurses (n = 89, 63%), APPs (n = 63, 44%), physicians (n = 37, 26%), and data managers (n = 13, 9%) performed data entry. Sixty-four respondents (45%) estimated requiring over 30 minutes/patient for data abstraction and entry, and 67 respondents (48%) felt data entry was a modest or significant barrier to PFC application. The majority of respondents were very or generally satisfied with PFC (87%), unchanged from previous (90%). The perceived impact of PFC on accurate application of the guidelines improved from 41% to 72% (p &lt; 0.001), and on fostering conversations with survivors about risk for late effects and screening improved from 44% to 70% (p &lt; 0.001). Conclusions: These results underscore the PFC’s role in increasing guidelines utilization and facilitating conversations with survivors about screening needs. The burden of data entry was a noted limitation, particularly when this responsibility fell to the physician or APP, and was further corroborated by user prioritization of ‘exposure data pre-population by treatment protocol’ for future PFC modifications.